Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request to the National Archives and Records Administration for records concerning draft indictments of Hillary Clinton created as part of the investigation of the Clintons during the Clinton administration. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request and admitted that it had found 238 responsive pages in two separate files. The agency denied the request entirely on the basis of Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records). Judicial Watch submitted an administrative appeal, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, Judicial Watch filed suit.Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Adequacy - Search, Litigation - Vaughn index, Litigation - Attorney's fees

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Reggie Walton has ruled that the National Archives and Records Administration properly withheld two draft indictments of Hillary Clinton that were prepared during the Whitewater investigation under Exemption 3 (other statutes) and Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records). Judicial Watch requested the draft indictments, which were never issued, arguing that the existence of the indictments had become publicly known through the publication of the special counsel's final report. After reviewing the documents, NARA concluded that their disclosure would violate Rule 6(e) on grand jury secrecy by revealing information occurring before the grand jury and because Clinton's privacy interest under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy) and Exemption 7(C) outweighed any public interest in disclosure. Walton agreed with the agency. NARA contended that the draft indictments were inevitably tied to the grand jury proceedings. Walton noted that "the Court finds that the drafts of the proposed indictment would disclose the identity of individuals who actually testified before the grand jury and who the independent counsel considered calling as witnesses, as well as the inner workings of the federal grand jury process that would necessarily show the potential direction of the grand jury proceedings, given that the independent counsel likely drafted the document based on testimony and other information presented to that body." He pointed out that the draft indictments "were prepared as a direct result of the ongoing grand jury investigation." Walton rejected Judicial Watch's attempt to show that the information contained in the draft indictments had been publicly disclosed in the final report and accompanying documents. Instead, he observed that "while these efforts may provide some support, the plaintiff has not pointed to specific items of information in the public domain that sufficiently demonstrate that the information contained in the drafts of the proposed indictment are publicly available to warrant disclosure." The parties agreed that Hillary Clinton's privacy rights were the only ones at play here. Judicial Watch argued that because she was a well-known public figure, her privacy interest was substantially diminished. Walton indicated that "the plaintiff has not shown that the information contained in the drafts of the proposed indictments are widely available to the public, let alone to the extent that the privacy interest Mrs. Clinton has in the drafts is extinguished." Walton noted that "disclosure of the drafts of the proposed indictment would not shed light on any agency's performance of its statutory duties, but potentially shed lightly solely on the character of Mrs. Clinton, independent to her position as a public official, which is not the objective of the FOIA." Walton pointed out that he was satisfied with NARA's claim that no segregable portions of the indictments could be disclosed, Noting that "the segregability analysis under Exemption 3 differs from other FOIA exemptions, he observed that "the scope of the exemption Is not determined by FOIA itself, but by the protective statute that is being invoked under Exemption 3."
Issues: Exemption 3 - Limited agency discretion, Exemption 7(C) - Invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records

SUMMONS (3) Issued Electronically as to NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachments: # 1 Consent Forms)(zrdj) (Entered: 10/22/2015)

2015-10-29

4

NOTICE of Appearance by David Michael Glass on behalf of NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION (Glass, David) (Entered: 10/29/2015)

2015-11-16

5

RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 10/26/2015. ( Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 11/25/2015.), RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 10/27/2015., RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION served on 11/16/2015 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Cristina Rotaru)(Orfanedes, Paul) (Entered: 11/16/2015)

2015-11-24

6

ANSWER to Complaint by NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION.(Glass, David) (Entered: 11/24/2015)

2015-11-24

7

ORDER. In accordance with the attached Order, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall submit to the Court by December 4, 2015, a joint status report, proposing a schedule for the filing of, if any, dispositive motions, oppositions thereto, and replies. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on November 24, 2015. (lcrbw2) (Entered: 11/24/2015)

MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of the Joint Status Report, and in light of the parties' consent, it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) the defendant shall file its motion for summary judgment on or before January 19, 2016; (2) the plaintiff shall file its opposition to the defendant's summary judgment motion and/or its cross-motion for summary judgment on or before February 19, 2016; (3) the defendant shall file its reply in support of its summary judgment motion and/or opposition to the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on or before March 14, 2016; and (4) the plaintiff shall file its reply in support of its summary judgment motion on or before March 28, 2016. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on December 4, 2015. (lcrbw2) (Entered: 12/04/2015)

2015-12-08

Set/Reset Deadlines: Summary Judgment motions due by 1/19/2016; Opposition and Cross Motions due by 2/19/2016, Reply and Opposition to Cross Motion due by 3/14/15, Reply due by 3/14/16. Response to Cross Motions due by 3/14/2016. Reply to Cross Motions due by 3/28/2016. (mpt) (Entered: 12/08/2015)

MINUTE ORDER granting 11 Motion for Extension of Time. Upon consideration of the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Modify Briefing Schedule; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof, and in light of the parties' consent, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the following briefing schedule shall govern future proceedings in this case: (1) the plaintiff's opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment shall be filed on or before March 11, 2016; (2) the defendant's reply in support of its motion for summary judgment and opposition to the plaintiff's cross-motion shall be filed on or before April 4, 2016; and (3) the plaintiff's reply in support of its cross-motion for summary judgment shall be filed on or before April 18, 2016. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on March 3, 2016. (lcrbw2) (Entered: 03/03/2016)

2016-03-04

Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's Cross-Motion/opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 3/11/2016; Defendant's Opposition to Cross-Motion/Reply to Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 4/4/2016; Plaintiff's Reply to Opposition to Cross-Motion due by 4/18/2016. (tg) (Entered: 03/04/2016)

MINUTE ORDER finding as moot 9 Motion to Modify. In light of the Court's March 3, 2016 Minute Order, it is hereby ORDERED that the Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Modify Briefing Schedule and Points and Authorities in Support Thereof is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on March 21, 2016. (lcrbw2) (Entered: 03/21/2016)

MINUTE ORDER granting 14 Motion for Briefing Schedule. Upon consideration of the Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Modify Briefing Schedule and Points and Authorities in Support Thereof, and in light of the parties' consent, it is hereby ORDERED the motion is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the briefing schedule established by the Minute Order dated March 3, 2016, is modified to provide that the defendant's combined reply in support of its motion for summary judgment and opposition to the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment shall be filed on or before April 18, 2016, and that plaintiff's reply in support of its cross-motion for summary judgment shall be filed on or before May 2, 2016. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on March 28, 2016. (lcrbw2) (Entered: 03/28/2016)

2016-03-29

Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant's Response to Cross Motions due by 4/18/2016, Plaintiff's Reply in support of its Cross Motion for Summary Judgment due by 5/2/2016. (hs) (Entered: 03/29/2016)

ORDER. For the reasons to be set forth in the Memorandum Opinion to be issued by the Court within the next thirty days, absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will grant the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 10), and deny the Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc.'s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) in a final Order that will be issued contemporaneously with the forthcoming Memorandum Opinion. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendant National Archives and Records Administration's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc.'s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that this Order is not a final Order subject to appeal. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on September 26, 2016. (lcrbw2) (Entered: 09/26/2016)

2016-10-04

19

ORDER. In accordance with the Memorandum Opinion, issued on this same date, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendant National Archives and Records Administration's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc.'s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that this case is CLOSED. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on October 4, 2016. (lcrbw2) (Entered: 10/04/2016)